Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Its a related issue . The sates that are making it hard for the military same sex couples to get their benefits by requiring them to go to a federal facility are unwittingly making the case for the courts to make same sex marriage a federal issue or remedy instead of the sates rights argument .

If the states keep skirting federal law and not recognizing all legal marriages across state lines then there is no other way other than the supreme court to do what the sates refuse and that's rule in favor for full civil rights for gays , lesbians and transgendered citizens .

Pennsylvania is the on state in the northeast that hasn't passed marriage equality -- mostly because only half of the state is culturally "northeast" -- the central and western parts are more Mid-West culturally. But we also have the most at-risk governor for 2014 elections and his approval numbed are the lowest of any governor, so he will definitely lose to a Democrat. Then the problem is that the PA legislature (General Assembly) has 253 members making it the largest state legislature other than New Hampshire (which doesn't really count because the state's population is smaller than the city I live in). So our legislature is automatically slanted towards rural districts, hence why we're behind our neighbors.

My guess would be for Oregon to be next, maybe Nevada. Pennsylvania's will happen due to some court decision so it's just a matter of having a strong case brought at some point.

Pennsylvania is the on state in the northeast that hasn't passed marriage equality -- mostly because only half of the state is culturally "northeast" -- the central and western parts are more Mid-West culturally. But we also have the most at-risk governor for 2014 elections and his approval numbed are the lowest of any governor, so he will definitely lose to a Democrat. Then the problem is that the PA legislature (General Assembly) has 253 members making it the largest state legislature other than New Hampshire (which doesn't really count because the state's population is smaller than the city I live in). So our legislature is automatically slanted towards rural districts, hence why we're behind our neighbors.

My guess would be for Oregon to be next, maybe Nevada. Pennsylvania's will happen due to some court decision so it's just a matter of having a strong case brought at some point.

That's my take on PA. I get the feeling several states are in a similar boat.

Oregon is a good bet. But, we are running out of more progressive states. So, that means a SCOTUS decision. I just can't imagine having some states with it and others not doing it for 20, 30, 50, and never years.

I am saddened Indiana repubs are trying to get the anti-gay wagon started again. They are again proposing a ban. The city council of New Albany, IN (across the river from us) passed a resolution tonight, calling for the ban to be stopped. Purdue University has also called for it to be stopped. I hope more cities let their voices be known. They know they need a more progressive state (at least on this issue) to attract top people. If you're married in CA or NY, who would want to move to Indiana or other states where their marriage wouldn't mean anything. More and more gay couples have kids. They would fear moving there would leave their kids unprotected.

I read an article this week that used statistics to show left leaning ares where attracting like minded newcomers from right wing states and savers. The author saw this as further polarization off the USA . I will continue to search for it , if you know such an article please post it .

Logged

"If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people ." Tony Benn

None of them will rescind their Constitutional Amendments because those folks in favor (or more likely for many, don't care) about same-sex marriage don't have the numbers of passionate folks to come out and vote. Those against it are more likely to vote.

fyi, Pennsylvania was never one of those states that past an anti-equality constitutional amendment years ago. However they did legislate against it. Also, this just happened this past Monday. And remember, PA was one of the few states with a Republican senator (Toomey) that actually supported EDNA several weeks ago.

So it will either be a court case, or passage of House bill 1647 to repeal PA's defense of marriage act (again, it was not an amendment). You have to remember how many years it took for any bipartisan action on this issue in New York state. The only reason it eventually passed was due to business leaders pressuring a small amount of Republican lawmakers in Albany, threatening not to fund their reelections and asserting that it was bad for business not to pass it (which is true).

So what is needed is similar corporate (local) business pressure in PA, from the likes of (liberal) Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and others in the Philadelphia region, as well as Pittsburgh. Roberts just held a huge fundraiser at his home in Philly just a couple of weeks ago, hosted him over the summer on Martha's Vineyard, and frequently golfs with him. Realistically I can see PA acting on this by 2016.

None of them will rescind their Constitutional Amendments because those folks in favor (or more likely for many, don't care) about same-sex marriage don't have the numbers of passionate folks to come out and vote. Those against it are more likely to vote.

M

Maybe, Probably, but I think one or two will do it before hand (I hope). I think Arizona or Colorado or Nevada has it in them. They are western red and not southern red and there is a libertarian slant there.

When marriage equality passed here in Washington, many of the pro gay marriage commercials on tv were from republicans speaking how it's actually a Republican issue to support it. Granted that may not fly in a lot of places.

My partner and I got married this year. While we don't have any plans on moving I would like to be able to have the option odd livingin more than just 16 states.

I am surprised Nevada has not passed the bill yet . But they did get their Pot legalized

I think a state like Oregon will be next .

Weasel

Pot is still illegal in Nevada ( Colorado and Washington legalized it).

I'm surprised Nevada hasn't legalized marriage considering how much of their economy is based on tourism and people going to Vegas to get married. You would think the economics of it would have persuaded then by now. Especially considering how much$ you spend having a wedding.

Its a related issue . The sates that are making it hard for the military same sex couples to get their benefits by requiring them to go to a federal facility are unwittingly making the case for the courts to make same sex marriage a federal issue or remedy instead of the sates rights argument .

If the states keep skirting federal law and not recognizing all legal marriages across state lines then there is no other way other than the supreme court to do what the sates refuse and that's rule in favor for full civil rights for gays , lesbians and transgendered citizens .

You are of course referring to Oklahoma where our horrid governor eliminated ALL military spouse benefits just so she could discriminate against same-sex spouses. (Oh, just noticed that Bug mentioned Oklahoma as well.)

I hope you're right, and a federal remedy becomes law because in this ass-backward, bigoted part of the country a federal ruling is absolutely necessary for same-sex marriage to be recognized (I still hear the N-word regularly).

The only other likely state is Oregon, right? I'm trying to think in my head which states could do this soon. I could possibly see Michigan. I only say that due to Facebook data of the greatest number of profile changes to the red equality logo. Michigan was pretty hot. I realize that doesn't necessarily equate to getting marriage equality. But, I could see Michigan making a change maybe in 5 years. Those younger folks will be voting. I think most (if not all) state supreme courts are posts for life, no? Well, that will take longer to get governors to appoint judges, who do view this as the equal rights issue it is.

So, I am left wondering when and if the U.S. Supreme Court will go broad. We know many states would take another generation-- even 3 or 4 more generations in some.

If we look at the 2012 electoral map. The blue's left would be:Nevada, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Florida (did I miss any?).

It's really a toss up as to who's next with Oregon maybe with the advantage.

See the comparison between the electoral map and the states that permit the gays to get hitched? Quite striking really. I think it speaks volumes as to the social divide in this country. Really, two countries.

Well, the successful lawyers from the Prop 8 case have joined a challenge here in Virginia.... Would be very fitting if a VA case was the one the SCOTUS used to overturn all the same-sex marriage bans -- just like VA vs. Loving case did for the interracial bans.

However -- that would likely take a couple years, so let's hope something quicker happens.

I hardly consider some of those states "blue", more purple, so I would be quick to eliminate Florida, Virginia, and Ohio. Not really knowing the inner politics of the remainder too well I would still go with Oregon.

After Oregon and maybe a few more, my guess is that a case will be brought up to the Supreme Court to bring marriage equality to all. (in 2015 or the first half of 2016)

I'd much rather get this obvious conclusion over with so that the gay people in our country can focus more on HIV and how it affects our community and those elected officials that stand in the way.

PS- Mike, I hope you are right although I really don't care what state it stems from as long as it gets done.

I hardly consider some of those states "blue", more purple, so I would be quick to eliminate Florida, Virginia, and Ohio. Not really knowing the inner politics of the remainder too well I would still go with Oregon.

After Oregon and maybe a few more, my guess is that a case will be brought up to the Supreme Court to bring marriage equality to all. (in 2015 or the first half of 2016)

I'd much rather get this obvious conclusion over with so that the gay people in our country can focus more on HIV and how it affects our community and those elected officials that stand in the way.

PS- Mike, I hope you are right although I really don't care what state it stems from as long as it gets done.

Virginia is more blue than people think. All 5 statewide elective offices (Governor, Lt. gov, Attorney General & both US Senate seats will be Democrats in Jan). Without gerrymandering, the Repubs would not have a majority in the House of Delegates or an 8-3 margin in the US House

Mitch - I am with you too, any case that does it. The sooner the better

Virginia is more blue than people think. All 5 statewide elective offices (Governor, Lt. gov, Attorney General & both US Senate seats will be Democrats in Jan). Without gerrymandering, the Repubs would not have a majority in the House of Delegates or an 8-3 margin in the US House

Mitch - I am with you too, any case that does it. The sooner the better

M

I think there are more states that are more blue than we think. It's up to those who live in them to make a difference when causes are just.

The victory of which you speak was won by a thin margin due to the ludicrous Republican opponents. I'm glad that common sense prevailed in any case, whatever the reason.

I still think Virginia is a purple state. Maybe one of the purplest (yes, that's a word I think. .) states in the country.

Time to mix the paint a bit more. You may or may not agree but I believe a heavy dose of cobalt blue is needed.

Virginia is more blue than people think. All 5 statewide elective offices (Governor, Lt. gov, Attorney General & both US Senate seats will be Democrats in Jan). Without gerrymandering, the Repubs would not have a majority in the House of Delegates or an 8-3 margin in the US House

Mitch - I am with you too, any case that does it. The sooner the better

M

I forgot Virginia. Yes! Virginia has really changed. And, I totally forgot Colorado. Those two are more likely than say Pennsylvania.

To undo our Constitutional Amendment a bill would have to pass two legislative sessions before going to a referendum. With the horrific gerrymandering in place, The republicans will continue to run the House of Delegates for years and years. The Dems win the statewide "popular vote", but gerrymandering has concentrated them into just a few districts. So, unless we change how we draw districts, it ain't changing here except by the SCOTUS -- because we certainly aren't going to get the legislative branch to give up their power to keep power by picking voters.

How is the Virginia Supreme Court stacked? Do they seem to rule along political lines? I actually would have to research how our Supreme Court rules. There haven't been many big cases here that got much news. I really should know more about ours-- whether they are considered politically divided or not. It will give me some reading homework.

It does make me wonder why no one has challenged our ban to our high court. I think there are a couple suits in the works now, though.

I believe that marriage is a right. An equal right. Rights should not be voted on by an initiative or it becomes a matter of popularity.

I agree but those initiatives may be the key to unlock the door for those of us that are in states that will still deny us our rights 100 years from now given the choice . The supreme court will eventually rule in our favor and the states that's used initiatives and won are making it a bit easier for them to get to the conclusion whats good for same is good for all of us . I think .

I agree but those initiatives may be the key to unlock the door for those of us that are in states that will still deny us our rights 100 years from now given the choice . The supreme court will eventually rule in our favor and the states that's used initiatives and won are making it a bit easier for them to get to the conclusion whats good for same is good for all of us . I think .

I hear you but I don't believe the Supreme Court should not even be paying attention to initiatives in regards to rights. The two just don't mix IMHO. Rights are rights. Not something we as a country should ever put up for a vote. Lawsuits that have merit on the other hand... that is what just happened this summer and seems to be working pretty well. Major progress has been happening since. Another properly presented case will suddenly put an end to this discrimination and I think it will happen within a few short years.

I believe that marriage is a right. An equal right. Rights should not be voted on by an initiative or it becomes a matter of popularity.

I don't believe that the majority should vote on the rights of a minority either. However, I was asking because of the statement that Virginia would have to wait until the courts forced the state to change their law. I was curious if the people could force an initiative.

I did some research and from what I found on Wikipedia, the initiative process is mostly a west coast thing. Most of the east coast states do not allow citizen driven initiatives.

Can't the Virginia courts do the same thing, and not have to wait on the legislature or SCOTUS?

I need to go back and review the California case. Didn't prop 8 end up trumping the California Supreme Court? If so, how does that happen? I can see challenging a state court decision, but not an initiative ballot trumping it. I need to go back and review that, because I could be wrong how things went down.

I need to go back and review the California case. Didn't prop 8 end up trumping the California Supreme Court? If so, how does that happen? I can see challenging a state court decision, but not an initiative ballot trumping it. I need to go back and review that, because I could be wrong how things went down.

I don't believe that the majority should vote on the rights of a minority either. However, I was asking because of the statement that Virginia would have to wait until the courts forced the state to change their law. I was curious if the people could force an initiative.

I did some research and from what I found on Wikipedia, the initiative process is mostly a west coast thing. Most of the east coast states do not allow citizen driven initiatives.

Your first statement contradicts everything that followed unless I am somehow reading this wrong.